Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and

Applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > OK, are you saying that there is a signal we are ignoring for
> > > overflow/underflow, or that we should just silently overflow/underflow
> > > and not throw an error?
> >
> > Silent underflow is fine with me; it's the norm in most all float
> > implementations and won't surprise anyone.  For overflow I'm OK with
> > either returning infinity or throwing an error --- but if an error,
> > it should only be about inf-out-with-non-inf-in, not comparisons to any
> > artificial MAX/MIN values.
>
> OK, I am happy to remove the MIN/MAX comparisons.  Those were in the
> original code.
>
> The attached, updated patch creates a single CHECKFLOATVAL() macro that
> does the overflow/underflow comparisons and throws an error.  This also
> reduces the isinf() calls.  Should I be concerned we are now duplicating
> the error text in all call sites?
>
> Regression wording modified now that float4/float8 checks are merged.  I
> haven't update the platform-specific float* expected files yet, but will
> on commit.
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +